Lower-complexity layered belief propagation decoding ldpc codes

ABSTRACT

Low density parity check (LDPC) decoders are described utilizing a sequential schedule called Zigzag LBP (Z-LBP), for a layered belief propagation (LBP) architecture. Z-LBP has a lower computational complexity per iteration than variable-node-centric LBP (V-LBP), while being simpler than flooding and check-node-centric LBP (C-LBP). For QC-LDPC codes where the sub-matrices can have at most one “1” per column and one “1” per row, Z-LBP can perform partially-parallel decoding with the same performance as C-LBP. The decoder comprises a control circuit and memory coupled to a parity check matrix. Message passage is performed within Z-LBP in a first direction on odd iterations, and in a second direction on even iterations. As a result, a smaller parity check matrix can be utilized, while convergence can be more readily attained. The inventive method and apparatus can also be implemented for partially-parallel architectures.

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application a 35 U.S.C. §111(a) continuation-in-part of PCT international application number PCT/US2009/044899 filed on May 21, 2009, incorporated herein by reference in its entirety, which is a nonprovisional of U.S. provisional patent application Ser. No. 61/055,104 filed on May 21, 2008, incorporated herein by reference in its entirety. Priority is claimed to each of the foregoing applications.

The above-referenced PCT international application was published as PCT International Publication No. WO 2009/143375 on Nov. 26, 2009 and republished on Mar. 18, 2010, and is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.

STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT

This invention was made with Government support of Grant No. N66001-06-1-2034 awarded by the Navy. The Government has certain rights in this invention.

INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A COMPACT DISC

Not Applicable

NOTICE OF MATERIAL SUBJECT TO COPYRIGHT PROTECTION

A portion of the material in this patent document is subject to copyright protection under the copyright laws of the United States and of other countries. The owner of the copyright rights has no objection to the facsimile reproduction by anyone of the patent document or the patent disclosure, as it appears in the United States Patent and Trademark Office publicly available file or records, but otherwise reserves all copyright rights whatsoever. The copyright owner does not hereby waive any of its rights to have this patent document maintained in secrecy, including without limitation its rights pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §1.14.

A portion of the material in this patent document is also subject to protection under the maskwork registration laws of the United States and of other countries. The owner of the maskwork rights has no objection to the facsimile reproduction by anyone of the patent document or the patent disclosure, as it appears in the United States Patent and Trademark Office publicly available file or records, but otherwise reserves all maskwork rights whatsoever. The maskwork owner does not hereby waive any of its rights to have this patent document maintained in secrecy, including without limitation its rights pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §1.14.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

1. Field of the Invention

This invention pertains generally to decoding low density parity check (LDPC) codes, and more particularly to controlling message passing within the decoder in response to odd and even iterations of the decoding process.

2. Description of Related Art

Low-Density Parity-Check (LDPC) codes comprise linear block codes defined by a very sparse parity-check matrix H, and are often proposed as the channel coding solutions for modern wireless communication systems, magnetic storage systems and solid-state drive systems. Medium-rate LDPC codes are used in standards, such as DVB-S2, WiMax (IEEE 802.16e), and wireless LAN (IEEE 802.11n). Furthermore, high-rate LDPC codes have been selected as the channel coding scheme for mmWave WPAN (IEEE 802.15.3c). These recent successes of LDPC codes appear primarily in response to their structures which are readily implemented in partially-parallel decoders. These structured codes, called quasi-cyclic LDPC (QC-LDPC), have been adopted in all the standards mentioned above.

QC-LDPC codes are represented as an array of sub-matrices, such as by the following.

${H_{QC} = \begin{bmatrix} A_{1,1} & \cdots & A_{1,t} \\ \vdots & \; & \vdots \\ A_{s,1} & \cdots & A_{s,t} \end{bmatrix}},$

where each sub-matrix A_(i,j) is a p×p circulant matrix. A circulant matrix is a square matrix in which each row is a one-step cyclic shift of the previous row, and the first row is a one-step cyclic shift of the last row.

QC-LDPC decoders have a significantly higher throughput than the decoders of random sparse matrices. The QC-LDPC structure guarantees that at least p messages can be computed in a parallel fashion at all times if a flooding schedule is used. It should be appreciated that well-designed QC-LDPC codes perform as well as utilizing random sparse matrices.

The original message-passing schedule, called flooding, updates all the variable-nodes simultaneously using the previously generated check-to-variable messages and then updates all the check-nodes simultaneously using the previously generated variable-to-check messages. Sequential message-passing schedules are used to update the nodes sequentially instead of simultaneously. Several studies show that sequential scheduling not only improves the convergence speed in terms of number of iterations but also outperforms traditional flooding scheduling for a large number of iterations. Different types of sequential schedules exist, such as a sequence of check-node updates and a sequence of variable-node updates. Sequential scheduling can also be referred to as Layered Belief Propagation (LBP), which will be utilized herein to refer to all sequential schedules.

Check-node-centric LBP (C-LBP) is a term which indicates a sequence of check-node updates, and variable-node-centric LBP (V-LBP) indicates a sequence of variable-node updates. Simulations and theoretical results show that LBP converges about twice as fast as flooding because the messages are updated using the most recent information available as opposed to updating several messages with the same pre-update information. C-LBP has the same decoding complexity per iteration as flooding, thus providing a convergence speed increase at no cost. However, V-LBP solutions have a higher complexity per iteration than flooding and C-LBP. This higher complexity arises from the check-to-variable message computations.

Furthermore, QC-LDPC codes where the sub-matrices can have at most one “1” per column and one “1” per row facilitate C-LBP and V-LBP decoding in a partially-parallel fashion. This parity-check matrix structure allows partially-parallel processing for each of the p nodes over the bi-partite graph, and each processor uses the most recent information available. Thus, QC-LDPC structures guarantee that C-LBP and V-LBP can perform partially-parallel computations and maintain a sequential schedule.

However, small-to-medium blocklength high-rate QC-LDPC codes generally require more than one diagonal per sub-matrix, while only allowing one row of sub-matrices. In these cases, the single row of sub-matrices is necessary because multiple rows require the sub-matrix size to be too small to provide the necessary throughput. FIG. 1 is a cyclic-shift diagonal diagram showing the structure of the parity-check matrix of a regular high-rate LDPC code. Diagonal lines represent the “1”s of H. For example, the rate—14/15 LDPC code proposed in the IEEE 802.15.3c standard is a regular code with a similar parity check matrix structure to the one shown in FIG. 1. Its blocklength is 1440, and its check-node degree d_(c) is 45. Therefore, conventional C-LBP decoders cannot be implemented in a partially-parallel fashion.

Accordingly, a need exists for a system and method of decoding LDPC codes with reduced overhead while not increasing error rate or convergence iterations. These needs and others are met within the present invention, which overcomes the deficiencies of previously developed LDPC decoding systems and methods.

BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The present invention is a method, apparatus and/or system for decoding data blocks encoded with low-density parity checks (LDPC) codes. More particularly, the invention provides for the scheduling of message passing and accumulation within a parity check matrix by a control circuit. A parity check matrix, comprising for example three layers of soft exclusive-OR (Soft-XOR) gates, is configured with check-nodes and variable-nodes through which messages are passed. The control circuit sequences message passing in a zigzag pattern on the parity check matrix through a number of iterations until the result converges or an iteration limit is reached. Message passing performed within the present invention is performed differently on the even and odd iterations of the sequence, and in particular forward and backward computations are performed on different iterations, for example backward operations on odd iterations and forward operations on even iterations. The resulting method and system provides rapid convergence and can be performed with a small parity check matrix. Embodiments of the inventive method can also perform partially-parallel computations while maintaining the sequential schedule.

The invention is amenable to being embodied in a number of ways, including but not limited to the following descriptions.

One embodiment of the invention is an apparatus, comprising: (a) a parity check matrix having multiple rows of interconnected exclusive-OR gates; and (b)

a control circuit configured for sequential scheduling of message passing to update check-nodes and variable-nodes when decoding codeword data blocks received by the apparatus; the control circuit adapted for performing variable-node updates in a zigzag pattern over the parity check matrix in which generation and propagation of messages is performed in opposite directions through the parity check matrix for even and odd iterations of sequential scheduling. The computations are preferably completed when the codeword converges or a predetermined number of iterations is reached during computation.

The apparatus provides pipelined checksum decoding of low density parity check (LDPC) encoded data blocks through the parity check matrix in response to updating based on layered belief propagation (LBP). It should be appreciated that the present invention can be utilized to provide channel coding within a variety of applications, including various communications systems, magnetic storage systems and solid-state drive systems.

In one embodiment the control circuit is configured for updating sub-matrix columns within the parity check matrix for performing partially-parallel checksum decoding within the apparatus.

In at least one embodiment, the interconnected exclusive-OR gates comprise a backward row, a forward row, and at least one other uni-directional row between the backward and forward rows. Either forward message accumulation or backward message accumulation is performed within each iteration of sequential scheduling, without the need of performing both forward and backward message accumulation for each iteration. In at least one implementation, the parity check matrix comprises a sparse parity check matrix having at most one “1” per column and one “1” per row.

One embodiment of the invention is an apparatus, comprising: (a) a memory configured for retaining messages and accumulating forward and backward messages for check-nodes within an associated parity check matrix having multiple rows of interconnected exclusive-OR gates; and (b) a control circuit configured for sequential scheduling of message passing to update check-nodes and variable-nodes on the associated parity check matrix when decoding codeword data blocks received by the apparatus; with a control circuit adapted for performing variable-node updates in a zigzag pattern over the associated parity check matrix in which generation and propagation of messages is performed in opposite directions through the parity check matrix for even and odd iterations of sequential scheduling. The apparatus in combination with a parity check matrix performs pipelined checksum decoding of low density parity check (LDPC) encoded data blocks through the parity check matrix in response to updating based on layered belief propagation (LBP).

In at least one embodiment, the control circuit is configured for updating sub-matrix columns within an associated parity check matrix for performing partially-parallel checksum decoding within the apparatus.

One embodiment of the invention is a method of performing pipelined checksum decoding of low density parity check (LDPC) encoded data blocks through a parity check matrix in response to updating based on layered belief propagation (LBP), comprising: (a) sequentially scheduling message passing to update check-nodes and variable-nodes within a parity check matrix through a series of iterations; (b) generating and propagating messages in a first direction on odd iterations; and (c) generating and propagating messages in a second direction on even iterations.

In at least one embodiment, sub-matrix columns are updated within an associated parity check matrix in response to performing partially-parallel checksum decoding within said apparatus.

The present invention provides a number of beneficial aspects which can be implemented either separately or in any desired combination without departing from the present teachings.

An aspect of the invention is a low-density parity check (LDPC) decoder adapted for speeding convergence while minimizing the size of the parity check matrix.

Another aspect of the invention is a control circuit for sequencing the message passing and accumulation on an associated parity check matrix of an LDPC decoder.

Another aspect of the invention is a control circuit which modulates the types of message passing performed in response to iteration number.

Another aspect of the invention is a control circuit which generates and accumulates forward and backward messages on differing odd and even iterations of the convergence process.

Another aspect of the invention is a control circuit which is configured for performing partially-parallel checksum decoding.

Another aspect of the invention is a method of performing the LDPC decoding without the need of flooding or performing both forward and backward message passing on the same iteration.

Another aspect of the invention is a LDPC decoder in which the parity check matrix comprises multiple rows of interconnected exclusive-OR gates.

Another aspect of the invention is a LDPC decoder which converges about twice as fast as flooding decoders.

Another aspect of the invention is a LDPC decoder whose required memory size is equal only to the number of edges of the bi-partite graph.

Another aspect of the invention is a LDPC decoder which requires ⅓ fewer XOR blocks than are required for either flooding or C-LBP decoders.

Another aspect of the invention is a LDPC decoder which has a computational complexity per iteration of Z-LBP which is d_(c)/2 times simpler than that of V-LBP, for a degree—d_(c) check-node.

A still further aspect of the invention is a LDPC decoder which can be incorporated within various apparatus and systems, such as wireless communication systems, magnetic storage systems and solid-state drive systems, and so forth.

Further aspects of the invention will be brought out in the following portions of the specification, wherein the detailed description is for the purpose of fully disclosing preferred embodiments of the invention without placing limitations thereon.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S)

The invention will be more fully understood by reference to the following drawings which are for illustrative purposes only:

FIG. 1 is a cyclic-shift diagonal diagram showing the structure of a conventional parity check matrix of regular high-rate low-density parity-check (LDPC) codes.

FIG. 2 is a schematic diagram of a parity check matrix having three rows of soft exclusive-OR logic blocks.

FIG. 3 is a flowchart of Z-LBP decoding according to an embodiment of the present invention, showing different processing performed for odd and even iterations during convergence.

FIG. 4 is a plot comparing the number of iterations required in response to flooding, C-LBP, V-LBP and Z-LBP.

FIG. 5 is a plot comparing the number of Soft-XOR operations required in response to flooding, C-LBP, V-LBP and Z-LBP.

FIG. 6 is a plot comparing error differences in response to flooding, C-LBP, V-LBP and Z-LBP for different numbers of iterations.

FIG. 7 is a cyclic-shift diagonal diagram in one sub-matrix of the parity check matrix according to one aspect of the present invention.

FIG. 8 is a flowchart of partially-parallel Z-LBP decoding according to an embodiment of the present invention, showing different processing performed for odd and even iterations during convergence.

FIG. 9 is a plot of relative performance in response to flooding, C-LBP, V-LBP and Z-LBP sequence methods.

FIG. 10 is a plot of convergence speed in relation to the number of exclusive-OR elements comparing flooding, C-LBP, V-LBP and Z-LBP.

FIG. 11 is a plot comparing frame error rates for flooding, C-LBP, V-LBP and Z-LBP scheduling methods.

FIG. 12 is a block diagram of Z-LBP control hardware according to an embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 13 is a schematic of Soft-XOR implementation according to an aspect of the present invention.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

Referring more specifically to the drawings, for illustrative purposes the present invention is embodied in the apparatus and methods generally described with reference to FIG. 2 through FIG. 13. It will be appreciated that the apparatus may vary as to configuration and as to details of the parts, and that the method may vary as to the specific steps and sequence, without departing from the basic concepts as disclosed herein.

1. Introduction.

The present invention utilizes a zigzag LBP scheduling scheme called Z-LBP that can decode any LDPC code as well as partially-parallel decoding for QC-LDPC codes. This novel strategy reduces the computational complexity per iteration. Moreover, in utilizing Z-LBP, the advantages of sequential scheduling, such as faster convergence speed and better decoding performance, are maintained in comparison with flooding techniques.

A. Efficient Computation of Check-to-Variable Messages.

The message from check node c_(i) to variable-node v_(j) is generated, such as in response to using the following equation,

$\begin{matrix} {{m_{c_{i}\rightarrow v_{j}} = {\prod\limits_{v_{b} \in {{N{(c_{i})}} \smallsetminus v_{j}}}\; {{{sgn}\left( m_{v_{b}\rightarrow c_{i}} \right)} \times {\phi\left( {\sum\limits_{v_{b} \in {{N{(c_{i})}} \smallsetminus v_{j}}}\; {\phi \left( {m_{v_{b}\rightarrow c_{i}}} \right)}} \right)}}}},} & (1) \end{matrix}$

where N(c_(i))\ v_(j) denotes the neighbors of c_(i) excluding v_(j), and φ(x) is defined as

${\phi (x)} = {- {{\log \left( {\tanh \left( \frac{x}{2} \right)} \right)}.}}$

Result m_(c) _(i) _(→v) _(j) is usually generated using a binary operator called Soft-XOR denoted by

shown in the following.

x

y≡φ(φ(x)+φ(y))

Soft-XOR is commutative, associative and easy to implement, allowing Eq. (1) to be practically implemented as follows,

$\begin{matrix} {m_{c_{i}\rightarrow v_{j}} = {\prod\limits_{v_{b} \in {{N{(c_{i})}} \smallsetminus v_{j}}}\; {{sgn}\left( m_{v_{b}\rightarrow c_{i}} \right)}{\underset{v_{b} \in {{N{(c_{i})}}/v_{j}}}{+}m_{v_{b}\rightarrow c_{i}}}}} & (2) \end{matrix}$

Eq. (2) shows that d_(c)−2 Soft-XORs are required to compute each message m_(c) _(i) _(→v) _(j) . Therefore, d_(c)(d_(c)−2) Soft-XORs are required to separately compute all the m_(c) _(i) _(→v) _(j) from the same check node c_(i).

FIG. 2 illustrates an example embodiment of an efficient parity check matrix. If a message-passing schedule requires the decoder to compute all the messages m_(c) _(i) _(→v) _(j) from the same c_(i) simultaneously, an efficient means for performing this is shown in the parity check matrix of FIG. 2. For any degree—d_(c) check-node, first d_(c)−2 intermediate values are generated, with f_(c,1)=m_(v) ₁ _(→c) _(i) , and f _(c) _(i) _(,j)=f_(c) _(i) _(,j−1)

m_(v) _(j) _(→c) _(i) for j={2, . . . , d_(c)−1}. This first step successively accumulates messages m_(v) _(j) _(→c) _(i) in a forward order. Then, d_(c)−2 intermediate values are generated with

b_(c, d_(c)) = m_(v_(d_(c)) → c_(i)),

and b_(c) _(i) _(,j)=b_(c) _(i) _(,j+1)

m_(v) _(j) _(→c) _(i) for j={d_(c)−1, . . . , 2}. This second step successively accumulates messages m_(v) _(j) _(→c) _(i) in a backward order. Finally, m_(c) _(i) _(→v) _(j) is computed by doing f_(c) _(i) _(,j−1)

b_(c) _(i) _(,j+1). This method uses 3(d_(c)−2) Soft-XORs to correctly compute all the messages m_(c) _(i) _(→v) _(j) from the same check-node c_(i) at the same time. This algorithm is optimal in the sense that no algorithm using fewer Soft-XORs can correctly compute all messages m_(c) _(i) _(→v) _(j) simultaneously from the same c_(i). Flooding and C-LBP decoders use this strategy because they compute all them m_(c) _(i) _(→v) _(j) from the same c_(i) at the same time.

The efficient parity check matrix of FIG. 2 allows for calculating m_(c) _(i) _(→v) _(j) from the same c_(i). This check-node update is equivalent to the BCJR algorithm over the trellis representation of the check-node equation in the log-likelihood domain. The forward accumulation of f_(c,j) corresponds to the BCJR α recursion in the log-likelihood domain. Also, the backward accumulation of b_(c,j) corresponds to the BCJR β recursion in the log-likelihood domain.

B. V-LBP Implementation Issues.

V-LBP solutions proposed in the industry have a higher complexity per iteration than flooding and C-LBP. The higher complexity arises from the check-to-variable message computations. Since the V-LBP algorithm sequentially updates variable-nodes, it does not allow computing all the messages m_(c) _(i) _(→v) _(j) from the same check-node c_(i) at the same time. Hence, the required number of Soft-XORs to compute all the messages m_(c) _(i) _(→v) _(j) from the same check-node c_(i) is given by d_(c)(d_(c)−2).

One method for reducing the complexity of V-LBP is to define M_(c) _(i) as,

$\begin{matrix} {M_{c_{i}} = {\prod\limits_{v_{b} \in {N{(c_{i})}}}\; {{{sgn}\left( m_{v_{b}\rightarrow c_{i}} \right)}{\underset{v_{b} \in {N{(c_{i})}}}{+}m_{v_{b}\rightarrow c_{i}}}}}} & (3) \end{matrix}$

where M_(c) _(i) is the Soft-XOR of all m_(v) _(j) _(→c) _(i) destined to the same check-node c_(i).

A Soft-XOR's inverse operator, Soft-XNOR, denoted by

, is defined as follows,

x

y=φ(φ(x)−φ(y)).

Thus, the message from check-node c_(i) to variable-node v_(j) can be computed according to,

m_(c) _(i) _(→v) _(j) =M_(c) _(i)

m_(v) _(j) _(→c) _(i)   (4)

The decoder first initializes all M_(c) _(i) for each check-node. Then, separately generates all the messages m_(c) _(i) _(→v) _(j) using Eq. (4). Also, when a new message m_(v) _(j) _(→c) _(i) is computed, M_(c) _(i) is re-calculated using,

M_(c) _(i) =m_(c) _(i) _(→v) _(j)

m_(v) _(j) _(→c) _(i)

In each iteration, computing all the messages m_(c) _(i) _(→v) _(j) from the same check-node c_(i) requires d_(c) Soft-XNORs. Moreover, d_(c) Soft-XORs are needed to re-calculate M_(c) _(i) since there will be d_(c) new messages m_(v) _(j) _(→c) _(i) on every iteration. Assuming that the complexity of Soft-XOR and Soft-XNOR is the same, the number of required operations per iteration needed to update a check-node is 2d_(c). Term d_(c) is omitted from the number of Soft-XORs required to compute M_(c) _(i) initially in Eq. (3).

However, Soft-XNORs are not invertible on every point. Without loss of generality, assume m_(v) ₁ _(→c) _(i) is 0. Then, M_(c) _(i) is 0, whereby messages m_(c) _(i) _(→v) ₁ =φ(φ(0)−φ(0))=∞. Also, even if all messages |m_(v) _(j) _(→c) _(i) | are non-zero, this algorithm remains numerically unstable because the dynamic range of Soft-XNOR is [0,∞). When the two arguments of Soft-XNOR are similar, the output is very large and runs out of quantization levels. It is realized in the industry that this large quantization noise makes implementation of this strategy impractical.

C. C-LBP Implementation Issues.

Algorithm 1 describes the partially-parallel version of the C-LBP algorithm. The C-LBP decoder processes one row of sub-matrices at the same time. Separate processors simultaneously update all check nodes C₁ in the same row of sub-matrices 1. Different variable-to-check messages m_(V→C) ₁ must be generated and propagated at the same time. If each sub-matrix contains at most one “1” per column and one “1” per row, the processors access disjoint sets of variable nodes. This guarantees that each processor uses the most recent information available even if all the processors perform in parallel.

Algorithm 1: Partially-Parallel C-LBP 1: Initialize all m_(c) _(i) _(→v) _(j) = 0 2: for every row of sub-matrix 1 do 3: Generate and propagate m_(V→C) ₁ 4: Generate and propagate m_(C) ₁ _(→V) 5: end for 6: If Stopping rule is not satisfied then 7: go to Step 2 8: end if

However, for small-to-medium blocklength high-rate QC-LDPC codes, the parity-check matrix contains only one row of sub-matrices, and there are more-than-one “1” per row and column of sub-matrix which prevents decoding from being sequential. Moreover, step 3 and 4 in Algorithm 1 become the variable-node update and check-node update of the flooding scheduling respectively. Therefore, partially-parallel C-LBP becomes exactly the same as flooding in complexity, convergence speed, and decoding capability. Partially-parallel C-LBP for small-to-medium high-rate QC-LDPC codes is not a sequential schedule.

2. Principles of Operation.

A novel LBP schedule is put forth in the present invention which requires fewer operations per iteration than flooding, C-LBP, or V-LBP to compute all the messages m_(c) _(i) _(→v) _(j) . Zigzag LBP is a V-LBP strategy that performs variable-node updates in a zigzag pattern over the parity-check matrix. Unidirectional (one-directional) updating, forward updating or backward updating of all variable-nodes, corresponds to one iteration. Zigzag updating guarantees that all the messages m_(c) _(i) _(→v) _(j) can be generated as will be presented in a later section.

It will be appreciated that the message passing decoding algorithm needs to update both variable nodes and check nodes. The main difference between C-LBP and V-LBP is the update order. Check-node-centric LBP (C-LBP) indicates a sequence of check-node updates, but also updates the variable nodes. After C-LBP updates a check node, the decoder updates the neighbors of the check node. Variable-node-centric LBP (V-LBP) indicates a sequence of variable-node updates. After V-LBP updates a variable node, then similarly the decoder updates the neighbors of the variable node. Z-LBP uses different sequencing than V-LBP and C-LBP and also updates both variable nodes and check nodes.

FIG. 3 (as well as Algorithm 2) formally presents an embodiment 10 of the Z-LBP algorithm. Referring to the figure, the decoder first initializes all messages 12, as well as channel information 14, and f_(c,j) 16 of every check-node. Iteration count is initialized 18 prior to commencing the iteration loop. Within the iteration loop, a check for even/odd iteration count is performed 20. For the first iteration, as well as all the odd iterations, a sequential update of variable-nodes v_(j), j={N, . . . , 1} in a backward fashion 22. All the messages m_(c) _(i) _(→v) _(j) destined to the same variable-node v_(j) are generated 26 using f_(c) _(i) _(,j−1)

b_(c) _(i) _(,j+1). Then, for odd iterations as checked by block 28 the decoder generates 30 all the messages m_(v) _(j) _(→c) _(i) from the same variable-node v_(j). The decoder then calculates all the b_(c,j) for every c_(i) that is a neighbor of variable-node v_(j) using b_(c) _(i) _(,j+1)

m_(v) _(j) _(→c) _(i) . Iteration count is advanced in block 34 and stop rules checked in 36, and if the stop rules are met then iterations are completed 38.

If the stop condition is not met, then a return to block 20 occurs, and with the second iteration, as well as all even iterations, a jump to block 24 is made to update the variable-nodes v_(j), j={1, . . . , N} in a forward direction. All the messages m_(c) _(i) _(→v) _(j) of the same variable-node v_(j) are still generated 26 using f_(c) _(i) _(,j−1)

b_(c) _(i) _(, j+1), and then all the messages m_(v) _(j) _(→c) _(i) are generated. Finally, the decoder calculates 32 all the f_(c,j) for every check-node c_(i) that is a neighbor of variable-node v_(j) using f_(c) _(i) _(j−1)

m_(v) _(j) _(→c) _(i) . The following details the above steps as pseudocode.

Algorithm 2: Z-LBP  1: Initialize all messages m_(c) _(i) _(→v) _(j) = 0  2: Initialize all messages m_(v) _(j) _(→c) _(i) = Channel Information  3: Initialize all f_(c) _(i) _(,j) = f_(c) _(i) _(,j−1)

 m_(v) _(j) _(→c) _(i)  4: Iter = 1  5: If Iter is odd then  6: for every v_(j), j={N,...,1} do  7: for every c_(i) ∈ N(v_(j)) do  8: Generate and propagate |m_(c) _(i) _(→v) _(j) | = f_(c) _(i) _(,j−1)

 b_(c) _(i) _(,j+1)  9: end for 10: for every c_(i) ∈ N(v_(j)) do 11: Generate and propagate m_(v) _(j) _(→c) _(i) 12: Compute b_(c) _(i) _(,j) = b_(c) _(i) _(,j+1)

 m_(v) _(j) _(→c) _(i) 13: end for 14: end for 15: else 16: for every v_(j), j={1,..., N} do 17: for every c_(i) ∈ N(v_(j)) do 18: Generate and propagate |m_(c) _(i) _(→v) _(j) | = f_(c) _(i) _(,j−1)

 b_(c) _(i) _(,j+1) 19: end for 20: for every c_(i) ∈ N(v_(j)) do 21: Generate and propagate m_(v) _(j) _(→c) _(i) 22:  Compute f_(c) _(i) _(,j) =f_(c) _(i) _(,j−1)

 m_(v) _(j) _(→c) _(i) 23: end for 24: end for 25: end if 26: Iter = Iter + 1 27: If Stopping rule is not satisfied then 28: Go to Step 5 29: end if

It should be appreciated that the decoder initializes all the f_(c,j) in Line 3 of Algorithm 2 following the order of the received channel information. Hence, the decoder simultaneously receives all the channel information and initializes all the f_(c,j). The Z-LBP algorithm computes all the messages m_(c) _(i) _(→v) _(j) using the forward and backward technique in a distributed fashion. However, the decoder computes messages m_(c) _(i) _(→v) _(j) and either f_(c,j) or b_(c,j) for a given iteration, instead of both of them in each iteration. Thus, fewer Soft-XORs are required to update a check-node. Z-LBP requires 2(d_(c)−2) Soft-XORs in order to update a check-node. Flooding and C-LBP require 3(d_(c)−2) Soft-XORs to update a check-node, and V-LBP requires d_(c)(d_(c)−2) Soft-XORs. Thus, if it is assumed that the complexity of computing check-to-variable messages is much higher than the complexity of computing variable-to-check messages, then Z-LBP is 1.5 times simpler than flooding and C-LBP and d_(c)/2 times simpler than V-LBP per iteration.

If the number of the edges of the bi-partite graph is denoted as N_(E), whereby there are N_(E) of the f_(c,j) values and N_(E) of the b_(c,j) values. One might think that this suggests that the Z-LBP decoder calls for a memory of size 2N_(E) However, the memory required is only N_(E), because b_(c,j) can be written in the same memory address of f_(c,j) given that f_(c,j) is not needed anymore. The same is also true for the even iterations, whereby the new f_(c,j) can be written in the same memory address of b_(c,j). Therefore, the required memory size is only N_(E), which is the same size memory required for a C-LBP decoder and half the memory required for a flooding decoder.

FIG. 4 depicts AWGN performance comparing four different scheduling strategies, flooding, V-LBP, C-LBP, and Z-LBP in response to an increasing number of iterations for a fixed error rate E_(b)/N₀=1.75 dB. All the simulations correspond to the blocklength—1944 rate—1/2 LDPC code presented in the IEEE 802.11n standard. This figure shows that Z-LBP has improved convergence speed over flooding techniques across all iterations. The frame error rate in response to flooding of around 20 and 40 iterations are equal to the frame error rate of Z-LBP around 15 and 30 iterations respectively. However, since the computational complexity of Z-LBP is 1.5 times simpler than that of flooding, while the convergence speed of Z-LBP for a given number of Soft-XORs is twice as fast as that of flooding.

FIG. 5 depicts improved convergence speed for Z-LBP in relation to the number of Soft-XORs required in relation to C-LBP, for a fixed E_(b)/N₀=1.75 dB.

For a degree—d_(c) check-node, the computational complexity of Z-LBP is d_(c)/2 times simpler than that of V-LBP. The code in the IEEE 802.11n standard has the check-node of degrees 7 and 8. Thus, the computational complexity of Z-LBP is 3.5 times simpler than that of V-LBP. Hence, the convergence speed of Z-LBP in terms of the number of Soft-XORs is around 2 times faster than V-LBP.

FIG. 6 depicts frame error rates of these four scheduling strategies presented above at different signal to noise ratios (SNRs) (e.g., E_(b)/N₀). Since the complexity of Z-LBP is 1.5 times simpler than flooding and C-LBP, the 50-iteration computational complexity of Z-LBP is equivalent to the 33-iteration that of flooding and C-LBP. Similarly, Z-LBP is 3.5 times simpler than V-LBP. Thus, the execution of a 50-iteration Z-LBP takes the same computation as a 14-iteration V-LBP. The performance of Z-LBP is 0.15 dB better than flooding. There is little difference shown in the results between the performance of C-LBP and Z-LBP in regards to number of iterations. However, the coding gain between Z-LBP and V-LBP is around 0.2 dB.

FIG. 7 illustrates cyclic-shift diagonals in one sub-matrix. Z-LBP can perform in a partially-parallel fashion by updating a column of sub-matrices. First, the cyclic-shift diagonals are labeled in each sub-matrix as shown in the figure. It is assumed that there are N_(mat) sub-matrices, and each sub-matrix has N_(diag) cyclic-shift diagonals (N_(diag)>1).

The following outlines the changes required in Algorithm 2. The order of variable-node updates at step 6 in Algorithm 2 is slightly changed to “for every column of sub-matrix SM_(j), j={N_(mat), . . . , 1}.” This labeling prevents memory access conflicts when all processors process p variable-nodes at the same time. All the m_(c) _(i) _(→v) _(j) are still computed using f_(c) _(i) _(,j−1)

b_(c) _(i) _(,j+1). However, since N_(diag)>1, the decoder requires extra d_(c)−N_(mat) Soft-XORs in order to compute f_(c,j) or b_(c,j) in advance. For example, when the decoder prepares to update the sub-matrix SM₂ in a forward fashion, the decoder needs to compute f_(c,N) _(diag) _(+j), j={1, . . . , N_(diag)−1} in advance. Because of the computation f_(c,j) or b_(c,j) in advance, the decoder does not use the recent information available at step 8 and 18 in Algorithm 2. However, this does not diminish the performance significantly.

FIG. 8 illustrates the above modification of FIG. 3, showing a partially-parallel embodiment 50 of the Z-LBP algorithm. Referring to the figure, the decoder first initializes all messages, channel information and f_(c,j) of check-nodes as per blocks 52, 54 and 56. Iteration count initialized 58 and iteration loop commenced 60 with a check for even/odd iteration. For the first iteration, as well as all the odd iterations, a sequential update of variable-nodes in the sub-matrix SM_(j), j={N_(mat), . . . , 1} in a backward fashion 62. All the messages m_(c) _(i) _(→v) _(j) destined to the same sub-matrix node SM_(j) are generated 66 using f_(c) _(i) _(,j−1)

b_(c) _(i) _(j+1). Then, for odd iterations as checked by block 68 the decoder generates 70 in parallel all the messages m_(v) _(j) _(→c) _(i) from the same variable-node. The decoder then calculates all the b_(c,j) for every c_(i) that is a node neighbor using b_(c) _(i) _(,j+1)

m_(v) _(j) _(→c) _(i) . Iteration count is advanced in block 74 and stop rules checked in 76, and if the stop rules are met then iterations are completed 78. If the stop condition is not met, then a return to block 60 occurs, and with the second iteration, as well as all even iterations, a jump to block 64 is made to update the variable-nodes SM_(j), j={1, . . . , N_(mat)} in a forward direction. All the messages m_(c) _(i) _(→v) _(j) of the same variable-node v_(j) are still generated 66 using f_(c) _(i) _(,j−1)

b_(c) _(i) _(,j+1), and then all the messages m_(v) _(j) _(→c) _(i) are generated. Finally, the decoder calculates 72 all the f_(c,j) for every check-node c_(i) that is a node neighbor using f_(c) _(i) _(,j−1)

m_(v) _(j) _(→c) _(i) .

Consider the rate—14/15 QC-LDPC code used in IEEE 802.15.3c. The check-node degree d_(c) is equal to 45, and there are 15 sub-matrices. Hence, Z-LBP in a partially-parallel fashion requires 114 Soft-XORs to compute all the messages m_(c) _(i) _(→v) _(j) from the same check-node c_(i). V-LBP requires 1935 Soft-XORs to compute all the messages m_(c) _(i) _(→v) _(j) from the same check-node c_(i). The flooding schedule requires 129 Soft-XORs to compute all the messages m_(c) _(i) _(→v) _(j) from the same check-node c_(i). Therefore, Z-LBP is 17 times and 1.13 times simpler than V-LBP and flooding respectively.

FIG. 9 depicts AWGN performance of three different scheduling strategies, flooding, V-LBP, and Z-LBP in a partially-parallel fashion, as the number of iterations increases. All the simulations use the same blocklength—1440 rate—14/15 LDPC code. Performance is compared in a partially-parallel fashion at different iterations for a fixed E_(b)/N₀=6.0 dB. The figure shows that Z-LBP in a partially-parallel fashion has better convergence speed than flooding across all iterations.

FIG. 10 illustrates convergence speed in response to number of Soft-XORs utilized, for a fixed E_(b)/N₀=6.0 dB. The convergence speed of Z-LBP for a given number of Soft-XORs utilized is around 3 times faster than flooding. Moreover, the convergence speed in terms of iterations of Z-LBP and V-LBP are similar. However, Z-LBP is 17 times simpler than V-LBP, and accordingly its convergence speed for a given number of Soft-XORs of Z-LBP is much faster than that of V-LBP.

FIG. 11 depicts frame error rates of these three scheduling strategies (flooding, V-LBP, and Z-LBP) presented above in a partially-parallel fashion at different SNRs (E_(b)/N₀).

Since the complexity of Z-LBP is 17 times and 1.13 times simpler than V-LBP and flooding respectively, the figure compares the 50-iteration complexity of Z-LBP, 3-iteration V-LBP and 44-iteration flooding, and shows the performance gap between flooding and Z-LBP is 0.125 dB. The performance of Z-LBP is 0.5 dB better than that of V-LBP.

FIG. 12 illustrates a system hardware architecture for an example Z-LBP embodiment 90. Upon receiving channel information the first component 92 converts received signal into Log-likelihood Ratio (LLR). The embodiment assumes y_(j) is a received signal through Gaussian channel, whereby the converting equation becomes,

$C_{v_{j}} = {{\log \left( \frac{p\left( {{y_{j}v_{j}} = 0} \right)}{p\left( {{y_{j}v_{j}} = 1} \right)} \right)} = {- {\frac{2\; y_{j}}{\sigma^{2}}.}}}$

After converting channel information to LLR, the decoder can start computing f_(c,j) for initialization in the check-node unit. The check-node unit is composed of Soft-XOR operator, which is described below in relation to the example implementation of FIG. 13.

The check-node unit 94 takes accumulated messages f_(c,j) or b_(c,j) from the memory 96 to execute the Soft-XOR operation. Then, the decoder replaces out-of-date f_(c,j) or b_(c,j) memory values with the latest f_(c,j) or b_(c,j) values. The memory size of forward or backward accumulated messages corresponds to the number of edges, N_(E), in the bi-partite graph as described in a prior section. The efficient computation of f_(c,j) or b_(c,j) has been shown in FIG. 2 and described. Once the check-node unit computes all the check-node to variable-node messages m_(c) _(i) _(→v) _(j) for the same variable-node v_(j), the decoder changes the data format 98 from signed magnitude to 1's complement notation or 2's complementary. For 1's complementary converting, if the input number is positive, there are no additional actions to be performed. If the input number is negative, then the sign bit is kept and all the other bits are inverted. For 2's complementary converting, if the input is a positive number then there are also no additional actions to be performed. However, if the input number is negative, then the circuit retains the sign bit, inverts all the other bits and adds one. For QC-LDPC codes, the circular shifter 100 can be implemented by a barrier shifter which contains parallel multiplexers to shift the input data in order to arrange all the messages m_(c) _(i) _(→v) _(j) for a variable-node unit 102. The message from variable-node to check-node is given by,

$m_{v_{j}\rightarrow c_{i}} = {{\sum\limits_{c_{a} \in {{N{(v_{j})}} \smallsetminus c_{i}}}\; m_{c_{a}\rightarrow v_{j}}} + {C_{v_{j}}.}}$

Hence, the variable-node unit 102 is composed of adders. For high speed design, the variable-node update equation can use parallel adders. However, it will occupy more area. For low complexity design, the decoder can sum up all m_(c) _(a) _(→v) _(j) which is the posteriori LLR of the variable-node v_(j), and then subtract m_(c) _(i) _(→v) _(j) respectively for each message m_(v) _(j) _(→c) _(i) . The hard decision circuit 66 simply takes the MSB of posteriori LLR of each variable-node to determine the final output. The hard decision equation is

$v_{j} = \left\{ \begin{matrix} {0,} & {{{if}\mspace{14mu} m_{v_{j}}} \geq 0} \\ {1,} & {{{if}\mspace{14mu} m_{v_{j}}} < 0.} \end{matrix} \right.$

At this stage, the decoder 90 has finished one iteration and is ready to check the stop rule. If all the variable-nodes are satisfied with the parity check equations, the decoder can send out the hard decision outputs as final outputs. Otherwise, the decoder iteratively passes 104 messages from variable-node units to check-node units until the codeword converges or the decoder reaches the maximum iterations.

FIG. 13 illustrates an embodiment 110 of a Soft-XOR operator that can be implemented by the following hardware-friendly equation.

${{x{+ y}} \equiv {\phi \left( {{\phi (x)} + {\phi (y)}} \right)}} = {{{\log \left( {1 + ^{({x + y})}} \right)} - {\log \left( {^{- x} + ^{- y}} \right)}} \approx {{\min \left( {x,y} \right)} + {\max \left( {\frac{5 - {2{{x + y}}}}{8},0} \right)} - {\max \left( {\frac{5 - {2{{x - y}}}}{8},0} \right)}}}$

Referring to FIG. 13, at block 72, X and Y are the inputs of a Soft-XOR operator, which feed sum and difference blocks 114 a, 114 b. The difference block 114 a (X minus Y) is used to determine min(x,y) and this part of the computation corresponds to the third term in the above equation. The sum in 114 b (X plus Y) is used to compute the second term in the above equation. Block 116 is a 2-to-1 multiplexer (MUX) which uses the most significant bit (MSB) of the output from block 114 a to decide the value of min(x,y).

Circuit 118 a computes the value of 5−2|x+y| which is the numerator of the second term in the above equation. Circuit 118 b computes the value of 5−2|x−y| which is the numerator of the third term in the above equation. In block 120 a left shift of 1 bit is performed for all the input bits which is equivalent to multiplying the input by 2. In block 122 the absolute value is calculated. For a positive number, the output of the absolute value remains the same as the input, while for a 1's complement negative number, the output is equal to the inversion of every input bit. For a 2's complement negative number, the output is equal to the inversion of every input bit and then adding 1. Block 124 represents a constant of 5. In block 126 a subtractor circuit (difference) is applied.

Circuit 128 a computes the final value of the second term in the above equation, while circuit 128 b computes the final value of the third term in the above equation. Block 130 performs a right shift of 3 bits of all the input bits, and is equivalent to dividing the input by 8. Block 132 is a 2-to-1 multiplexer (MUX) using the MSB of the output of block 130 output to select the value of

$\frac{5 \pm {2{{x - y}}}}{8}$

or 0. Block 134 is a constant of 0.

An addition is performed in block 136 to sum the three terms of the above equation, with the final value 138 of the Soft-XOR operator being generated.

3. Advantages and Improvements.

A technique, referred to herein as Z-LBP, has been taught describing a low-complexity sequential schedule of variable-node updates. For a degree—d_(c) check-node, the computational complexity per iteration of Z-LBP is d_(c)/2 times simpler than that of V-LBP. Also, Z-LBP is 1.5 times simpler than flooding and C-LBP. Z-LBP outperforms flooding with a faster convergence speed and better decoding capability.

For QC-LDPC codes where the sub-matrices can have at most one “1” per column and one “1” per row, Z-LBP can perform partially-parallel decoding with the same performance as C-LBP. Therefore, in this case Z-LBP is an alternative implementation of LBP.

However, for small-to-medium blocklength high-rate QC-LDPC codes whose parity-check matrix contains only one row of sub-matrices, the partially-parallel C-LBP is exactly the same as flooding. In contrast, the proposed Z-LBP can still perform partially-parallel decoding and maintains a sequential schedule.

The present invention can be utilized for decoding LDPC codes defined by a very sparse parity-check matrix to provide various channel coding solutions for modern wireless communication systems, memory and data storage systems. By way of example and not limitation the present invention can be integrated within medium-rate LDPC codes used in standards, such as DVB-S2, WiMax (IEEE 802.16e), and wireless LAN (IEEE 802.11n), as well as high-rate LDPC codes for mmWave WPAN (IEEE 802.15.3c), and so forth.

The present invention provides methods and apparatus for decoding LDPC codes according to a lower complexity layered belief propagation network. The following summarizes, by way of example and not limitation, a number of implementations, modes and features described herein for the present invention.

1. An apparatus, comprising: a parity check matrix having multiple rows of interconnected exclusive-OR gates; and a control circuit configured for sequential scheduling of message passing to update check-nodes and variable-nodes when decoding codeword data blocks received by said apparatus; said control circuit adapted for performing variable-node updates in a zigzag pattern over said parity check matrix in which generation and propagation of messages is performed in opposite directions through said parity check matrix for even and odd iterations of sequential scheduling.

2. An apparatus as recited in embodiment 1, wherein said apparatus performs pipelined checksum decoding of low density parity check (LDPC) encoded data blocks through said parity check matrix in response to updating based on layered belief propagation (LBP).

3. An apparatus as recited in embodiment 1, wherein said control circuit is configured for updating sub-matrix columns within said parity check matrix for performing partially-parallel checksum decoding within said apparatus.

4. An apparatus as recited in embodiment 1, wherein said apparatus provides channel coding within a communications system, magnetic memory system, or solid-state drive system.

5. An apparatus as recited in embodiment 1, wherein completion of said iterations by said control circuit is determined in response to codeword convergence within said apparatus, or reaching a predetermined number of iterations.

6. An apparatus as recited in embodiment 1, wherein said interconnected exclusive-OR gates comprise a backward row, a forward row, and at least one other uni-directional row between said backward and forward rows.

7. An apparatus as recited in embodiment 1, wherein either forward message accumulation or backward message accumulation is performed within each iteration of sequential scheduling, without the need of performing both forward and backward message accumulation for each iteration.

8. An apparatus as recited in embodiment 1, wherein said interconnected exclusive-OR gates comprise soft exclusive-OR (soft XOR) circuits.

9. An apparatus as recited in embodiment 1, wherein said parity check matrix comprises a sparse parity check matrix having at most one “1” per column and one “1” per row.

10. An apparatus as recited in embodiment 1, wherein for any degree d_(c) check-node the parity check matrix for the apparatus comprises 2(d_(c)−2) logic blocks, while for flooding and check-centered LBP (C-LBP) 3(d_(c)−2) exclusive-OR gates are required, and for variable-centered LBP (V-LBP) d_(c)(d_(c)−2) exclusive-OR gates are required.

11. An apparatus embodiment as recited in embodiment 1, wherein said control circuit requires a memory size of N_(E), which is equal to the number of the edges of an associated bi-partite graph.

12. An apparatus, comprising: a memory configured for retaining messages and accumulating forward and backward messages for check-nodes within an associated parity check matrix having multiple rows of interconnected exclusive-OR gates; and a control circuit configured for sequential scheduling of message passing to update check-nodes and variable-nodes on the associated parity check matrix when decoding codewords data blocks received by said apparatus; said control circuit adapted for performing variable-node updates in a zigzag pattern over said parity check matrix in which generation and propagation of messages is performed in opposite directions through the associated parity check matrix for even and odd iterations of sequential scheduling.

13. An apparatus as recited in embodiment 12, wherein said apparatus in combination with a parity check matrix performs pipelined checksum decoding of low density parity check (LDPC) encoded data blocks through the associated parity check matrix in response to updating based on layered belief propagation (LBP).

14. An apparatus as recited in embodiment 12, wherein said control circuit is configured for updating sub-matrix columns within the associated parity check matrix for performing partially-parallel checksum decoding within said apparatus.

15. An apparatus as recited in embodiment 12, wherein completion of said iterations is determined in response to codeword convergence within said apparatus, or reaching a predetermined number of iterations.

16. An apparatus as recited in embodiment 12, wherein either forward message accumulation or backward message accumulation is performed within each iteration of sequential scheduling, without the need of performing both forward and backward message accumulation for each iteration, or of simultaneously updating all nodes as in a flooding approach.

17. An apparatus as recited in embodiment 12, wherein said interconnected exclusive-OR gates comprise soft exclusive-OR (soft XOR) circuits.

18. A method of decoding low density parity check (LDPC) encoded data blocks through a parity check matrix in response to updating based on layered belief propagation (LBP), comprising: sequentially scheduling message passing to update check-nodes and variable-nodes within a parity check matrix through a series of iterations; generating and propagating messages in a first direction on odd iterations; and generating and propagating messages in a second direction on even iterations.

19. A method as recited in embodiment 18, further comprising initializing messages and forward message accumulation in response to the order of received channel information, prior to executing said series of iterations.

20. A method as recited in embodiment 18, further comprising updating of sub-matrix columns within an associated parity check matrix in response to performing partially-parallel checksum decoding within said apparatus.

Embodiments of the present invention may be described with reference to equations, algorithms, and/or flowchart illustrations of methods according to embodiments of the invention. These methods may be implemented using computer program instructions executable on a computer. These methods may also be implemented as computer program products either separately, or as a component of an apparatus or system. In this regard, each equation, algorithm, or block or step of a flowchart, and combinations thereof, may be implemented by various means, such as hardware, firmware, and/or software including one or more computer program instructions embodied in computer-readable program code logic. As will be appreciated, any such computer program instructions may be loaded onto a computer, including without limitation a general purpose computer or special purpose computer, or other programmable processing apparatus to produce a machine, such that the computer program instructions which execute on the computer or other programmable processing apparatus create means for implementing the functions specified in the equation (s), algorithm(s), and/or flowchart(s).

Accordingly, the equations, algorithms, and/or flowcharts support combinations of means for performing the specified functions, combinations of steps for performing the specified functions, and computer program instructions, such as embodied in computer-readable program code logic means, for performing the specified functions. It will also be understood that each equation, algorithm, and/or block in flowchart illustrations, and combinations thereof, may be implemented by special purpose hardware-based computer systems which perform the specified functions or steps, or combinations of special purpose hardware and computer-readable program code logic means.

Furthermore, these computer program instructions, such as embodied in computer-readable program code logic, may also be stored in a computer readable memory that can direct a computer or other programmable processing apparatus to function in a particular manner, such that the instructions stored in the computer-readable memory produce an article of manufacture including instruction means which implement the function specified in the block(s) of the flowchart(s). The computer program instructions may also be loaded onto a computer or other programmable processing apparatus to cause a series of operational steps to be performed on the computer or other programmable processing apparatus to produce a computer-implemented process such that the instructions which execute on the computer or other programmable processing apparatus provide steps for implementing the functions specified in the equation (s), algorithm(s), and/or block(s) of the flowchart(s).

Although the description above contains many details, these should not be construed as limiting the scope of the invention but as merely providing illustrations of some of the presently preferred embodiments of this invention. Therefore, it will be appreciated that the scope of the present invention fully encompasses other embodiments which may become obvious to those skilled in the art, and that the scope of the present invention is accordingly to be limited by nothing other than the appended claims, in which reference to an element in the singular is not intended to mean “one and only one” unless explicitly so stated, but rather “one or more.” All structural and functional equivalents to the elements of the above-described preferred embodiment that are known to those of ordinary skill in the art are expressly incorporated herein by reference and are intended to be encompassed by the present claims. Moreover, it is not necessary for a device or method to address each and every problem sought to be solved by the present invention, for it to be encompassed by the present claims. Furthermore, no element, component, or method step in the present disclosure is intended to be dedicated to the public regardless of whether the element, component, or method step is explicitly recited in the claims. No claim element herein is to be construed under the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, unless the element is expressly recited using the phrase “means for.” 

1. An apparatus, comprising: a parity check matrix having multiple rows of interconnected exclusive-OR gates; and a control circuit configured for sequential scheduling of message passing to update check-nodes and variable-nodes when decoding codeword data blocks received by said apparatus; said control circuit adapted for performing variable-node updates in a zigzag pattern over said parity check matrix in which generation and propagation of messages is performed in opposite directions through said parity check matrix for even and odd iterations of sequential scheduling.
 2. An apparatus as recited in claim 1, wherein said apparatus performs pipelined checksum decoding of low density parity check (LDPC) encoded data blocks through said parity check matrix in response to updating based on layered belief propagation (LBP).
 3. An apparatus as recited in claim 1, wherein said control circuit is configured for updating sub-matrix columns within said parity check matrix for performing partially-parallel checksum decoding within said apparatus.
 4. An apparatus as recited in claim 1, wherein said apparatus provides channel coding within communications systems, magnetic storage systems and solid-state drive systems.
 5. An apparatus as recited in claim 1, wherein completion of said iterations by said control circuit is determined in response to codeword convergence within said apparatus, or reaching a predetermined number of iterations.
 6. An apparatus as recited in claim 1, wherein said interconnected exclusive-OR gates comprise a backward row, a forward row, and at least one other uni-directional row between said backward and forward rows.
 7. An apparatus as recited in claim 1, wherein either forward message accumulation or backward message accumulation is performed within each iteration of sequential scheduling, without the need of performing both forward and backward message accumulation for each iteration.
 8. An apparatus as recited in claim 1, wherein said interconnected exclusive-OR gates comprise soft exclusive-OR (soft XOR) circuits.
 9. An apparatus as recited in claim 1, wherein said parity check matrix comprises a sparse parity check matrix having at most one “1” per column and one “1” per row.
 10. An apparatus as recited in claim 1, wherein for any degree d_(c) check-node the parity check matrix for the apparatus comprises 2(d_(c)−2) logic blocks, while for flooding and check-centered LBP (C-LBP) 3(d_(c)−2) exclusive-OR gates are required, and for variable-centered LBP (V-LBP) d_(c)(d_(c)−2) exclusive-OR gates are required.
 11. An apparatus as recited in claim 1, wherein said control circuit requires a memory size of N_(E), which is equal to the number of the edges of an associated bi-partite graph.
 12. An apparatus, comprising: a memory configured for retaining messages and accumulating forward and backward messages for check-nodes within an associated parity check matrix having multiple rows of interconnected exclusive-OR gates; and a control circuit configured for sequential scheduling of message passing to update check-nodes and variable-nodes on the associated parity check matrix when decoding codewords data blocks received by said apparatus; said control circuit adapted for performing variable-node updates in a zigzag pattern over said parity check matrix in which generation and propagation of messages is performed in opposite directions through the associated parity check matrix for even and odd iterations of sequential scheduling.
 13. An apparatus as recited in claim 12, wherein said apparatus in combination with a parity check matrix performs pipelined checksum decoding of low density parity check (LDPC) encoded data blocks through the associated parity check matrix in response to updating based on layered belief propagation (LBP).
 14. An apparatus as recited in claim 12, wherein said control circuit is configured for updating sub-matrix columns within the associated parity check matrix for performing partially-parallel checksum decoding within said apparatus.
 15. An apparatus as recited in claim 12, wherein completion of said iterations is determined in response to codeword convergence within said apparatus, or reaching a predetermined number of iterations.
 16. An apparatus as recited in claim 12, wherein either forward message accumulation or backward message accumulation is performed within each iteration of sequential scheduling, without the need of performing both forward and backward message accumulation for each iteration, or of simultaneously updating all nodes as in a flooding approach.
 17. An apparatus as recited in claim 12, wherein said interconnected exclusive-OR gates comprise soft exclusive-OR (soft XOR) circuits.
 18. A method of decoding low density parity check (LDPC) encoded data blocks through a parity check matrix in response to updating based on layered belief propagation (LBP), comprising: sequentially scheduling message passing to update check-nodes and variable-nodes within a parity check matrix through a series of iterations; generating and propagating messages in a first direction on odd iterations; and generating and propagating messages in a second direction on even iterations.
 19. A method as recited in claim 18, further comprising initializing messages and forward message accumulation in response to the order of received channel information, prior to executing said series of iterations.
 20. A method as recited in claim 18, further comprising updating of sub-matrix columns within an associated parity check matrix in response to performing partially-parallel checksum decoding within said apparatus. 